why not?

Michael S (already5chosen.delete@this.yahoo.com) on March 2, 2019 4:06 pm wrote:
> Doug S (foo.delete@this.bar.bar) on March 2, 2019 3:53 pm wrote:
> > anon (spam.delete.delete.delete@this.this.this.spam.com) on March 2, 2019 9:09 am wrote:
> > >
> > > Back to the original question:
> > > Qualcomm makes exactly 0$ on ARM's A7x cores in Samsung's Exynos SoCs.
> > > Qualcomm makes exactly 0$ on Samsung's Mx cores in Samsung's Exynos SoCs.
> > > Doug S said this switch cost Qualcomm money.
> > > He also said this switch does not cost ARM anything.
> > >
> > > How does that work?
> > > I quote "The savings Samsung gets from their Exynos cores come at Qualcomm's expense, not ARM's."
> > > How? Qualcomm is not paying them anything nor are they losing out on any revenue since that was already 0.
> >
> >
> > The modems.
> >
> > Qualcomm charges royalties based on the phone's cost (this is what Apple is fighting over) but when
> > Samsung uses Exynos they don't have to pay Qualcomm royalties on the phone's cost. They own enough
> > cellular patents they may have a cross license agreement with Qualcomm and pay $0, but even if they
> > pay something they pay far less to Qualcomm than they do when they use a Qualcomm SoC.
>
> You didn't read what anon said, do you?
>

I think you didn't read, or didn't understand, what I wrote. I thought it was pretty clear. For every Exynos SoC Samsung ships in a phone, Qualcomm makes less money because they don't get to sell them a Qualcomm SoC, and charge based on a percentage of the phone's sale price for their patents because of the deal they make licensees sign.

This has nothing to do with the ARM cores in the Exynos or Snapdragon, it has to do with the modems.

He quoted me as saying "The savings Samsung gets from their Exynos cores", which if that is what I typed I mistyped, and should have said "Exynos SoCs".